The High Court at Hyderabad today suspended the proceedings of Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly wherein YSR Congress MLA R K Roja was suspended from the House for a year.
Roja, the MLA from Nagari in Chittoor district, was suspended for a year during the winter session of the AP Assembly in December last year for allegedly using unparliamentary and abusive language against certain members of the ruling Telugu Desam, including Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu.
The aggrieved opposition member filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, challenging the House's decision against her.
Judge A Ramalingeswara Rao prima facie found that the Speaker did not name Roja before moving the motion for suspending her.
"Under Rule 340 (2), the Speaker can suspend any member who has been persistently obstructing the proceedings of the House and who had been violating the rules of the business for the remainder period of the session. In this case no such procedure has been adopted and the rule quoted for her suspension does not apply to the case of Mrs Roja," the judge observed.
He posted the writ petition for final consideration four weeks later.
Meanwhile, the government has decided to challenge the single judge's order before a division bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad.
"Under Article 212 of the Constitution, the court cannot overrule a decision of the House. Nor can the House be held in contempt. We will not implement the single judge's order and go on appeal against it," a minister said.
The single judge's order is yet to be delivered to the Speaker formally.
Roja's lawyer told reporters outside the High Court that it is an interim order and this (order) will be immediately informed to the Legislative Assembly to enable the MLA to attend the session.
The Delhi government in its affidavit has said that the
petition filed by the petitioner was misconceived, devoid of merits and was liable to be dismissed.
"The claim of the petitioner is totally vexatious and does not fall within the legal ambit and by no stretch of the imagination, the claim of the petitioner can be justified.
"The petition is not maintainable in as much as section 37 of the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act, 1991 provides that the courts cannot inquire into the proceedings of Legislative Assembly and no officer or member of Legislative Assembly in whom powers are vested by or under the Act," the government added.
Earlier also Sharma had sought the court's permission to allow him to take part in a two-day special session held in June.
The AAP government had told the court that Sharma has not "regretted" on what he had said about Lamba.
Referring to a report of an Ethics Committee of the Delhi assembly on the issue, the government had said that Sharma was given chances to express regret on his remarks but had refused.
The Ethics Committee had "unanimously" recommended stripping Sharma of his assembly membership for his remarks against Lamba and being "unrepentant" about it.
Sharma had earlier said "my intention was not to hurt Lamba as she is like my sister, but if she felt offended I express regret over it".
